re: Why is it taking Texas so long to make a hire?

quote:

---

I think you are very mistaken. The brand varies from school to school within each conference.

---

Well sure, each school has their own brand and the blue bloods in every conference get a benefit of doubt other teams don't get.

But there is still such a thing as conference brands. For some conferences, the brand is so valuable it has been motenized through a network.

So out of the brands for the major conferences, the Big 12's is easily the worst. No network or potential for a network (like the ACC has). Plus only they and the ACC lost any teams in realignment, and after those losses the Big 12 got WVU and TCU while the ACC got ND and UL.

Now that doesn't mean every brand in the Big 12 is worthless, just that the Big 12 brand is weak. And that is by design, as the top programs of the Big 12 prefered a model where the conference brand would not leach off of the team brand (as it does in the SEC). I personally think this was a huge mistake, but even someone who agrees with that model also has to agree it leads to a weak Big 12 brand.

quote:

---

Besides, my whole argument is that perception is not reality. The Big 12 is, realistically, still the second or third best football conference.

---

First of all, I would argue perception is reality. In both the BCS era and in the future playoff era the entire setup is basically a beauty contest. Unlike the NFL everything isn't and won't be settled on the field, which means perception determines access to success. And by perception an undefeated Baylor was behind a one-loss Stanford.

I mean, I guess I can't argue with you personally thinking the Big 12 is second or third. So instead I will say it is fourth or fifth in the eyes of the national media, and their opinion is the one that matters.